4309 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

only if the game points out to you that you were dumb for doing it and only IF you regret doing it ...which you won't if that was really the ending you wanted.

do NOT impose endings on people, it's the best way to kill replayability

[Wulfram]

crimzontearz wrote...

only if the game points out to you that you were dumb for doing it and only IF you regret doing it ...which you won't if that was really the ending you wanted.

do NOT impose endings on people, it's the best way to kill replayability

The best way to kill replayability is to have one clearly superior perfect ending. 

One way to encourage replayability is to have real choices, without a clear right or wrong answer.

[Twaddlefish]

I get the feeling that saving everybody won't be an option. Make sure Shep and Garrus live and we're cool.

[crimzontearz]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Quite so.

Sometimes when I'm reading the "grim darks" posts it's as if they want to absolve themselves of responsibility for keeping their squaddies alive by pushing the blame onto "The Story". if "The Story" demands a death then there's nothing I can do about it. It's not my fault.

Keeping my squad alive is extremely easy, but it is also boring. I want more drama. I want the story to have more tension and higher stakes. As it stands, I can only do that by deliberately having my Shepard make mistakes. Obvious mistakes.

Picking Zaeed as a Squad leader makes sense given his past and his experience....(please do not even start with the "and I was the only one comiong out alive" meme)...yet it still causes a death

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Quite so.

Sometimes when I'm reading the "grim darks" posts it's as if they want to absolve themselves of responsibility for keeping their squaddies alive by pushing the blame onto "The Story". if "The Story" demands a death then there's nothing I can do about it. It's not my fault.

Keeping my squad alive is extremely easy, but it is also boring. I want more drama. I want the story to have more tension and higher stakes. As it stands, I can only do that by deliberately having my Shepard make mistakes. Obvious mistakes.

It's not really a "mistake" if you don't do loyalty missions, if you can talk yourself into the excuses - like you don't have time or resources to spare, or that you just happen to not value the loyalty of your crew.
The only problem I see with this is that it severely limits gameplay to cut out the loyalty missions, and I am of the type to milk all of the time I can out of playing a game (especially because they are SO pricey...).

[crimzontearz]

Wulfram wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

only if the game points out to you that you were dumb for doing it and only IF you regret doing it ...which you won't if that was really the ending you wanted.

do NOT impose endings on people, it's the best way to kill replayability

The best way to kill replayability is to have one clearly superior perfect ending. 

One way to encourage replayability is to have real choices, without a clear right or wrong answer.

superior? Why "superior"? What makes an ending "Superior" compared to another if the "other" option is more appealing to you?

So you are saying that you would like "more" if more people survived but you want a "lesser" ending? if you want the lesser ending more then THAT ending is qualitatively superior to YOU

why would it be superior otherwise?

[Wulfram]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

It's not really a "mistake" if you don't do loyalty missions, if you can talk yourself into the excuses -

Sure, but then I have to skip half the ****ing game.

You can always do them afterwards.  Well unless they're dead.

[BlueMagitek]

And Bioware has done cutscene deaths well before while still making it an option. Remember the final battle in DA:O? Sure, it was restricted to one gender and certain things had to apply, but I thought it was well done & showed off your squad mate's heroism/character/whatever you want to call it. ~_^

[Medhia Nox]

@Saphra Deden - have you ever written a revised "This is how I would do it." synopsis of the ME trilogy?

[Wulfram]

Saphra Deden wrote...

They make no sense when you do them afterwords.

Why not?  They're your friends, or if not you owe them.  You don't have a huge amount else to do at the moment.  If anything I find it easier to justify doing them after than before.

Doing recruitment missions after would be pretty bizarre, though.

[Medhia Nox]

Concerning the loyalty missions - we're told we "need" these people to complete "the mission" - and, then we're told (by these people) that their heads aren't "in the game" until they can get problem x,y, and z out of the way.

Now - on its own - I don't see a problem in this at all. In fact - I find the loyalty missions more interesting than the Reapers.

However - the background of the game makes these loyalties missions sometimes seem foolish.

What do you mean I've got to help you save/kill your son, brother, sister, friend, daughter, father, self? There are giant space cuttlefish out there... don't you think that's just a LITTLE more important than your personal issues?

But again - the Reaper threat is boring (to me) and should have been resolved in ME 1. ((And I think it would have been great if it actually WAS a Geth deception))

Anyway - the problem is that there are two opposing directions the game goes in. Down to earth character building - and epic hack and slash adventure. They don't mesh well (at least in this game).

[BlueMagitek]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Picking Zaeed as a Squad leader makes sense given his past and his experience....(please do not even start with the "and I was the only one comiong out alive" meme)...yet it still causes a death

That makes no sense actually because the dude's clearly f*cking insane and no one in their right mind would follow him.

No, this doesn't make sense because if you listen to his stories, they tend to be "X happened, only I made it out alive."  So yeah. >_>

I'm surprised Jacob was an appropriate pick, though.  I know he was a Corsair, but while Garrus led his own team (which worked out pretty well until the treachery and all) and Miranda was your XO & had an excellent team based passive, Jacob really didn't have any of that.  Ah well. ~_^

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

It's not really a "mistake" if you don't do loyalty missions, if you can talk yourself into the excuses -

Sure, but then I have to skip half the ****ing game.

You can always do them afterwards.  Well unless they're dead.

They make no sense when you do them afterwords.

Yeah, I admitted that was a huge flaw in my thinking -- I can especially appreciate this because I am HUGE on roleplaying within the game and getting as much content out of the game as possible.  It would have been nice if there were more ways to "complete" loyalty missions without gaining loyalty - like in Samara's or Tali's LM's.  If they had done that, and then downplayed the whole "You must build your team aspect", a lot more people would have been shocked in the end.

[BlueMagitek]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Miranda got her whole team killed. Why does she work?

Why does Jacob work? We never see him lead anything.

Garrus got his whole team killed, so why does he work?

Zaeed had one mission where everyone died, but it was a suicide mission after all. Otherwise you can interpret his stories to mean either that he is a bad leader or that he undertakes high risk missions where casualities are inevitable.

'dat Cerberus Leader/Tactician passive.  So nice.

I don't know. =D

He was doing fine until the treachery ensued.  There's no treachery here. =D

[Athayniel]

Wulfram wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

only if the game points out to you that you were dumb for doing it and only IF you regret doing it ...which you won't if that was really the ending you wanted.

do NOT impose endings on people, it's the best way to kill replayability

The best way to kill replayability is to have one clearly superior perfect ending. 

One way to encourage replayability is to have real choices, without a clear right or wrong answer.

That might be true if the 'perfect ending' was easier to achieve than the rest. Oh, wait... it's pretty easy to keep everyone alive in the SM and people still replay that sucker constantly to get different kinds of horrific endings.

It is not my contention to make the 'everybody lives' ending easy. I would make it pretty convoluted to get actually. I remember Max Payne 2, in which to get the ending where Mona lives you needed to play the game again on Hard. I'm not advocating that myself but it's an example. Other games have done similar things since the beginning of time, *especially* RPGs.

As for your second point, that isn't a way to make a game replayable. If you feel one ending is as good as any other why would you ever replay it to get a different one? And different people have different definitions of what constitutes a 'good' ending as we have so ably demonstrated in this thread. The difference being I don't want to deprive you of your 'good' ending while you do wish to deprive me of mine.

[Athayniel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Keeping my squad alive is extremely easy, but it is also boring. I want more drama. I want the story to have more tension and higher stakes. As it stands, I can only do that by deliberately having my Shepard make mistakes. Obvious mistakes.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, I think the mechanics behind the SM couldn't have been implemented in a better way. It is not a method I advocate being repeated. Also, I contend that the kind of tension engendered by the threat of squadmate death is qualitatively different to that engendered by the threat of mission failure. Certainly when I watch a TV show, the feeling I get when 'Anyone Can Die' is invoked is different to that when I can't see how the heroes can possibly win. I like the latter kind of tension. I think the former is just annoying because it takes me out of the story. 'who is the writer gonna kill?' is what I think, as opposed to 'how will the heroes get out of this one?'

[Elessara]

I just saw this thread and no I haven't even read most of it but a massive THIS to the OP.

Some people might find a happy ending cheap. Some might find it boring. Well good for you. I hope your preferred ending is included just as much as my preferred ending. But I really hope the options for BOTH the sob-fest and the happy ever after are possible.

[AdmiralCheez]

*walks in to check on things*

*sees some new supporters, some new non-supporters, and the usual suspects arguing over some sorta bullsh*t i don't even*

*hands paddle to EternalAmbiguity, walks out*